Physics my friend!
Physics explains it all.
We have video games out today that map a players form as they perform some task. The computer renders this and maps it all. From a swing of a golf club to a diving tackle.
Throw on the suit - hit some tricks. The computer will fill in the blanks. Measure the distance the bag actually traveled versus the time it took for it to travel. Measure the starting and ending point of motion. Measure the energy required in joules for a move, it's link, etc...
No one said it would be easy, or cheap to do. But it is something that if done, will fill in the blanks of the ADD system.
I run with a guy who is 6' 7" tall and weighs roughly 200 + lbs. As we were running I cursed him for having such long legs. To me it seemed easier for him to blow right past me. His response, "Yeah, but they are heavy legs." And he is correct. It takes him more energy to perform the same tasks.
Same is true in footbag. The reason why Chad D never beat Ryan Mulroney in shred 30 is simple physics. Ryan can hit 3 more moves in 30 seconds than can Chad. EVER! So it is an automatically unfair advantage that Ryan is shorter. Yet the system is what it is, a clock!
If such a system existed, you could easily incorporate height and weight as factors in determining difficulty. You really can't complain if a 5' 400 lb. man steps up and hits ripwalk > fog > fusion and scores higher than your 135 lb. blurriest > blurrywhirl > scorpion's tail. Not that that would ever happen. lol
I'd like to say one more thing about difficulty. I imagine a system where the position of a move in a given string can also assist in determining its difficulty.
Example:
blurrywhirl > butterfly x 30
butterfly x 30 > blurrywhirl
Which one is harder?
And to answer your pdx torque analogy - I feel that physics is the answer to that question. Harder to me is a matter of muscle memory not difficulty. I have NEVER EVER EVER hit Food. But I can hit Pixie Paradon rake all day long. Because I practice it all day long. Now I'm rambling.
[edit] more rambling ...
Making it broad is boring and only works for consistent moves that are agreed upon by who? Like you said yourself, we can't agree. It screams mathematics, it screams physics!
We had a saying back in 1999 - "Get to the tech!" We were referring to shuffle at the time. But I am screaming it to advance the sport, from past time exercise, to a full on sport where exceptions have rules too! ~peace
Symposium Butterfly/Down
Moderator: Muffinman
So.. does pogo-set also get add for symposium? And yes, I do think your opinion is valid, but I have always thought that these tricks dont get symp add. And if pogo doesn't get, why? Just drunk and curious..Muffinman wrote:It's a 3-add move with a symposium add -- 3+1 = 4, duh. Just because it is "easier" doesn't negate an add. Footbag.org is not god's word.
Joonas Korhonen
Good point.
Yeah. Pogo is symposium, so it gets a symp add. It's pretty simple.
Of course this is all moot, since adds don't matter with the descriptive system, which solves all problems. But for the purpose of continuity with the advice given in all of these threads over the years, I'm not going to suddenly change every thread title to correspond with the descriptive system, as that would just create more confusion.
So my argument that Symposium Butterfly is 4 adds is solely for the purpose of organizing these threads in the Master List I've created.
But I'm also right
Yeah. Pogo is symposium, so it gets a symp add. It's pretty simple.
Of course this is all moot, since adds don't matter with the descriptive system, which solves all problems. But for the purpose of continuity with the advice given in all of these threads over the years, I'm not going to suddenly change every thread title to correspond with the descriptive system, as that would just create more confusion.
So my argument that Symposium Butterfly is 4 adds is solely for the purpose of organizing these threads in the Master List I've created.
But I'm also right